The time for engineers to take center stage has arrived. If something is possible engineers will find a way. Selecting realistic & appropriate goal is the difficult part. Upward flow of solar energy in the atmosphere could supply 3000 times human electricity needs & zero CO2. A controlled tornado could produce 200 MWe. The atmosphere is uncontrolled. Control could stabilize weather and cool the planet. Enable experienced process engineers; they will come up with solutions. Like the moon landing, solving large problems require large engineering effort.

Thanks for writing this clarifying and important article. I do believe engineers can bring the energy transition to the next level. Another big issue to tackle is public awareness of climate change and the much needed transition to a cleaner energy system. NYBISM is really big, every where. Once 'general consumers' are convinced, politicians will follow. As Communication professional I will look into this in the year to come, together with behavioural scientists and experts. More to follow in 2019!

Your call for engineer’s input is a breath of fresh air Jeffrey but as a retired engineer and one deeply concerned as to the lack of real progress regarding Climate Change mitigation. But with just 12 years (550 GtCO2 emissions) to go to have only a two thirds chance of limiting a global temperature increase to 1.5 degree C with a whole lot of baggage still to be sorted, it is a big ask. Issues somewhat outside an engineering remit would include:

1. There seems a need to distribute this 550 GtCO2 budget as equitably as possible to ensure accountability of its expenditure. Needless to say the 12 years IPCC refer to appears to be based on current emissions which are likely to increase somewhat in line with a massive increase in new clean energy sources manufacturing and installation. Do we distributed among the poorer countries and have the major emitters purchase credits from them? Do we share it among the biggest emitters (OECD and BRICS which are jointly responsible for 80%)? Do we choose the historically biggest emitters since the advent of the Industrial Revolution (UK, USA, France, Germany etc.)? Do we target the big per capita emitters like Canada, USA and Australia? Or to we just take pot luck and trust all countries will do their duty and not grab the bigger slices? 2. We need to align global policy maker’s thinking to acknowledge we have a truly huge problem on hand and that Climate Change is not some passing ‘fad’ that will just fade away unabated. This issue in itself is a major challenge in view of misinformation, doubt about the science, fake news contributions, market forces addiction, the ‘why me’ syndrome and absolute denial. 3. We need uniform policies on fossil carbon emissions to penalize the perpetrators. Cap and trade policies appear to be doing very little on this score and fierce opposition to carbon tax as seen recently in France, has somehow to be overcome.

Also regarding your ‘…wind, solar and hydro’ which are all very helpful, especially hydro in regard to electricity generation, but many nations, due to there high population density, low renewable resources and/or high energy demand, are also going to need nuclear power whether or not such is not quite ‘in vogue’. Blind faith in variable RE and batteries alone is not going to cut the mustard.

Unless these issues are brought into focus and resolved at diplomatic/international policy makers/voters levels all the efforts, skills and ingenuity of engineers will likely come to nought. If they are then the remaining timescale for 1.5 deg C will be the engineers biggest challenge.

Well, what have you economist been waiting for? Engineers always have plenty of technical solutions. The problem is that creating the realities require generating the right economic incentives to overcome the energy barriers, which in economics is called risk. There is no question that renewables can deliver. But the first mover risk is keeping a number of creative solutions from entering the market. Right-pricing the cost of carbon may be one way. Using the good old techno-industrial establishment has always been another. Developing weapons has always been a very risky business, but the industrial-government lobby has always been very good at keeping the wheels greased. How can we create a lobby for good? How can we keep those shady lawyers still rich but now working for good?

Now we are speaking! Based on now over 10 years executive energy transition classes, and a life-time in Shell- yes, we can frame the much better approaches to national, regional and international energy architecture transitions. Please come and join and support our working practice Energy For One World. And together we can land this star on the moon! Best, AK

The highest per-capita energy users (and carbon users) are all Northern countries... US, Canada, Russia, Scandinavia... One should consider the option of shifting the population closer to the equator.

Heating homes with electricity, while potentially zero carbon, would drastically raise the amount of energy used to heat homes (due to simple thermodynamics). This is a challenge while simultaneously reducing carbon use, to say the least.

Cogeneration is sensible, but assumes urban density and continuing full-time winter availability of thermal (fossil/nuke) electric generation. Smaller scale NGCC with cogeneration for community-scale heat may be the optimal medium-term stepping stone technology for the most overall effecient wintertime mix, in cold climates. (with the added benefit of lower cost than either nuclear or wind + energy-storage). Wind supplemented by solar would be the combination for the summer energy mix.

In the long run, if we want the people with the highest per-person carbon use to do their share, the most sensible thing to do may be to move south.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.